(1) I noticed you stepped over the THREE Nobel Laureates who support ending or dramatically curtailing the present system of Federal Reserve. (2) As a purported LIBERAL do you have ANY qualms with the NDAA Obama signed into Law on the New Years' Eve when the news cycle would be focused on the holidays and Iowa caucus. ANY problem with that bill at all? I want to know how far your cut your nose off to spite your face. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Your opinion piece is not the law. In fact this bill does not codify indefinite detention for US Citizens and the bill does not expand the scope of the War on Terror as defined by the 2001 AUMF and YES, U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill And we were fighting an enemy of "lawful combatants". Now we are not. It was no "minority of radicals", it was a well financed long term plan by a terrorist group that enjoyed the protection of the Taliban "govt" that was controlling Afghanistan with the sole purpose to kill thousands of Americans and terrorize the US. What I find interesting is your phrasing suggests that you don't believe the official story? Well, do you? Or is that your real problem, you don't believe that we were in fact attacked by Al Qaeda? Osama is dead but the network of Terrorists he helped to spawn is not dismantled. Except no freedoms have been restricted by these laws. Well unless you are an Al Qaeda supporter.
You have got to be kidding me. Osama was in a shitty mansion in that crap hole Pakistan jerking off to porn. Hardly Dr. Evil and hardly worth loosing more civil liberties over. Which is exactly what has happened here. As a matter of fact, most of these Muslim "Terrorists" are two bit pin dicks who wouldn't know their ass from a hole in the ground. The only way to address religious fanaticism is (A) getting our troupes out of their wasteland shit-hole mud hut nations and (B) education. Passing more and more insidious acts like the "unPatriotic Act" is asinine. Obama said he was going to restore our civil liberties NOT shit on them! Well, most Liberals will fall behind me on this one. Anthony D. Romero, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Executive Director "President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law. The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield." To me it's a bad sign. I remember all the rancor over the unPatriot Act. And how it was going to be "Limited" and "Only last a short period - Iraq would fall in 3 months" and people were SPEWING they were so mad at Cheney and Bush. Yet, here we have Obama accruing even more power into the Executive Branch and barely a peep from the Liberal base. Did you know that all domesticated animals have significant reductions in brain volume. Horse lost about 7% brain volume, that's nothing compared to swine - which lost 33% brain volume compared with wild bore. Americans are rapidly becoming domesticated, I can see the effects in one generation! NOTE: You know what Conor Friedersdorf and Anthony Romero (two well known influential liberals) are coming to terms with? Obama = Bush. It's taking a while, but slowly, slowly, it's sinking in. Ron Paul is the ONLY person who, as POTUS, will restore the Civil Liberties that we Liberals hold and cherish most. It's a simple fact. The ass Romney would be horrendous. And the nation can't take any more Obama cronyism. It's Paul or Bust at this point.
RE: Sanitarium As I said, 90% of Santorum voters picked him that day or the week before, they'll leave him just as quickly. Especially when they find out what a slime-ball he is. Lying for his married mate while he was having sex with another married woman (a staffer) - all while pretending to attend a Christian meeting! Haaa CLASSIC Republican hypocrite!!! See, Christians are pretty stupid people on the whole. Most think huck huck huck Fox/CNN/ABC/NBC told me not ter vote for Paul and Paul wers against baby Jesus-land over dar in the Jerooslum.... huck huck huck, I damn well aint vot-n fir da Marmin ....huck huck huck .... huck huck huck.... daaarrrrr ...... ..... *thinking* huck huck huck.... dar dar dar ...... Insaneatorium that sounds Christian Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Many millions of Home buyers played a key role. Mortgage lenders played a role. Retail Banks played a role. Investment Banks played a role. Mortgage Originators played a role. Home Appraisers played a role. Credit Rating Agencies played a role. Gov Regulators played a role. Fannie/Freddie and the Fed played a role. Barney Franks played a role via banking regulation and the CRA. And when the smoke cleared. Many millions of Home buyers lost the houses they bought (or spent the supposed equity in) but couldn't actually afford as in the decade before the bubble burst the price of the typical American house increased by 124%, which is why now 23% of U.S. homes are now worth less than their mortgage. The largest Mortgage lenders went under, like Countrywide as did wholesale lenders like Ameriquest. Retail Banks that played a major role went under, like WAMU and Wachovia. Investment Banks that played a major role went under like Bear Sterns, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers. Mortgage Originators played a role and many thousands are now gone (there were nearly 60,000 during the peak). Home Appraisers played a role as they consistently over valued homes with drive by appraisals. As far as I can tell, they have not paid significantly for their role in the crisis. Credit Rating Agencies played a KEY role as they significantly underestimated the risk in the Mortgage products. Indeed the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in January 2011 that: "The three credit rating agencies were key enablers of the financial meltdown. The mortgage-related securities at the heart of the crisis could not have been marketed and sold without their seal of approval". As far as I can tell, they have not paid significantly for their role in the crisis. Gov Regulators played a role via lack of regulation, particularly of complex mortgage backed securities and dumb moves like repealing of the G/S act etc. Fannie/Freddie and the Fed played a role and the SEC has recently charged former Fannie and Freddie execs with misleading investors about risks of subprime-mortgage loans. Franks played a minor role and will not run for re-election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis Nope. I said I don't know if Corzine was responsible or not. You are just focusing on him cause he is the CEO, not because you have any idea about how the money was lost. Why might he be innocent? http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/12/30/this-is-when-to-worry-about-your-ceo.aspx Not everything that is wrong is also illegal. For instance, making a bad investment decision, that leads to losing lots of investor's money might be the wrong thing to do, there is nothing illegal about it. You need to separate the two concepts. I think anyone, including Corzine, who did anything illegal should be charged and tried and if convicted pay for their crime. At the same time I don't think people should be sent to jail because they made bad investment decisions, you know, like the millions of people who had lost their house in a foreclosure. Arthur
Oh BS. This man had a degree and didn't live in a shit-hole mud hut. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta And yes, Al Qaeda is still active.
You're wrong. It won't be Paul (no chance at all of even getting the Republican nomination) And it won't be Bust either. Of course you will probably still be spewing your same BS a decade from now, none the wiser for all your wrong calls.
He didn't say it "undermines democracy" Stiglitz also said that his remarks on the Fed were "maybe a little hyperbole," http://wn.com/Joseph_Stiglitz_Make_Markets_Be_Markets_Roosevelt_Institute http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/03/stiglitz-nobel-prize-winn_n_484943.html
No doubt Paul will continue for a while. But if he cannot win Iowa, which he failed to do, then he will not be able to wing the nomination. So the question remains, does he run as a third party? And I think he does.
Here is the thing, not one of the economists you have named have called for the destruction of the Federal Reserve or neutering of the Federal Reserve - one of those minor details again Michael. I have disagreements with it. But I have disagreements with a lot of stuff. But here is the difference, I look at the big picture. And I don't allow myself to get caught up on every issue and become singular in focus.
So I answered your question the very first time Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Absolutely. It'll reflect more about her. But if that is what she would want to do with 'her property' (this forum?), then ya she can go ahead and do that.
When did you explain this? Hmm? Woman can choose to have eggs surgically removed? Contraceptives and so much more- why would these be allowed then if we were reducing them to a reproductive machine? Exactly why there would be no national police regarding it or federal regulation Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Do you have the FBI investigating every crime? I think most crimes are handled by the local police. Why? I'm pretty certain a baby can be born outside of hospitals. At least thats what they used to do when hospitals didn't exist Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Most people depend on the government for survival, isn't that what most welfare programs are for? So I'm guessing they don't have rights either in your 'liberal' world Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Most homocides, if not all, have some basic investigation done on them anyways, this would be nothing 'extra'. No, it becomes the 'self-defense' standard. Whoever is able to 'defend' keeps their life. You don't have to worry about the Police State. Bush and Obama have already delivered that to us. Now Ron Paul isn't against the 'morning after-pill'... Imagine why. It sounds contradictory yet it isn't but you won't understand it. If you thought about this a little you'll see all your 'police state' fears would be put to rest. Oh, welcome to the Police State. (Send thank you letters to Bush and Obama)
The "extra" here would be that every miscarriage would now be a "potential homicide" entailing a full police investigation. These alternating hand-waves ("that's what we already do!" and "that would be a pain in the ass so we wouldn't bother in practice!") are really, really not convincing as policy arguments. They're nothing more than cheap excuses to avoid any kind of hard analysis of the guy. So, pregnancy as a gladiatorial battle between mother and fetus, with the result termed "justifiable homicide in self-defense." Awesome. I've read his reasoning, and it comes down to "well, it would be a pain to police, and we need abortion for rape victims anyway, so let's not bother trying to police it. Although it should be illegal. " But that's horseshit. If Paul believes that life begins at conception, and that the Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to life and charges government with the supreme duty to protect that right, then it would follow that the morning after pill must be made illegal. Anyone found to have used such, would need to be tried for murder. If birth control pills can be misused as morning-after pills, then they need to be banned as well, or systems put in place to detect and prevent their use as a morning-after pill. Anything short of that is an open shirking of the duty to protect the right to life (coupled with the belief that life begins at conceptions, of course). In point of fact, though, Paul's statements on the morning after pill don't indicate any particular opposition to abortion at such an early stage. He seems to positively endorse such, in fact. So it seems pretty clear that his actual views on this stuff are not as clear-cut and unequivocable as they are wont to be portrayed, and that the resulting policy hash is the product of craven political calculations designed to appear to various shifting elements of the GOP electorate at different times of the day. The only thing left to explain being how he pulled off the trick of convincing his followers that he's so principled and absolutist, when in fact he's just another politician and routinely produces these kinds of equivocal maneuverings.
Because they would be considered 'homocide' when before they aren't. So how is it anything 'extra' in the context of homocide? The context of Tiassa comment was essentially 'life-effecting' situation. Means someone's life is in danger due to the other, and yes that means 'self-defense'. Try to be objective than emotional. Why would he make it illegal? Gun can kill people too. Government making laws isn't always the solution. True. How'd you know they did? How'd they know if the woman was pregnant. How would they know she 'murdered' someone when she was absolutely unaware of being pregnant in the first place. The time from 'sex' to verifiable pregnant is a few days. Nope. Freedom is imperfect, that is for sure. People who supported the Patriot Act and NDAA have 'reasons' too, but its just wrong from the libertarian point of view. Or realizing that the issue of abortion truly is complex. Paul's stance then would allow all views without have the Federal government 'allow it' or 'ban it'. His maneuvering is still honest. He says that the States will regulate it. He said it flat out that the Federal government would be out of the business of dealing with abortion. The reason you don't understand this is because most people think the Federal Government has to do everything. There are State governments too for your reminder.
(chortle!) Early October. Wow. I'll write that up to some misunderstanding about the issue instead of hellscorching misogyny. Why would Ron Paul want to get rid of the most effective contraceptives? While the most part of enforcing a federal life-at-conception statute would fall to the states according to their obligations under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, who will represent the conceived-not-born in the civil rights context that ensures their proper representation? (Hint: The federal Department of Justice handles civil rights complaints under the U.S. Constitution.) Time for Pokies, indeed. At least it will be a sheriff's deputy, or a city detective, and not a suit from D.C. You know, when some strange government agent is poking around inside your body, I think that would probably be a great comfort. I confess, the moronic clever libertarian trick of ignoring examples in order to crack a stupid irrelevant brilliant joke is one of the reasons we would be better off without people laugh at we all adore and envy enlightened libertarians such as yourself. Uh-huh. You demonstrate an excellent grasp of these issues. You have no idea, do you? At the very minimum, you're talking about a million new potential homicide investigations each year. You really haven't thought this through, have you? I don't know. The women of childbearing age I know aren't suffering through forced pelvic examinations. Seattle's corrupt police department does not yet have a Uterine and Menstrual Enforcement Division. Oh, it makes perfect sense, even if you're unable to explain the point yourself. Ron Paul is a politician. His whole life-at-conception spiel is an aesthetic standard. He's at least as full of crap as any other politician.
And we went through that? More like you trying to dramatize the position when it didn't need to be. 'Reproductive machine'.. ya I know. Which are? The case would be of murder not civil rights. Ron Paul Sanctity of Life Act took away abortion from federal jurisdiction. Lol. And they won't be. You said they'd be forcefully hospitalized. The 'examples' you give don't mean shit in this context. 'Irrelevant' has been your tool all along. Why so 'those dependents' have rights.. Hahaha! If it is homocide why wouldn't you be investigating them. Lets be clear.. You're saying essentially that even if life begin at conception lets not make it that because there will be a million more investigations of homocide? You decide if life is there or not first. If it is, I don't care if there would be 1 million more investigations. I have, but I can't seem to fathom your counter-argument technique which is essentially that if life did start at conception we shouldn't apply it because there would be more cost. You're saying to abandon life on the basis of 'cost'? Aren't you the liberals who want to regulate car companies and airlines and so many other industries because you believe they'll build 'unsafe' cars because it 'costs' them. So when did you become so fiscally conservative all of a sudden? Lol. This wouldn't happen but oh well... At least EVERYONE's isn't affected unlike what Obama did with NDAA. Lol... I thought so. All you guys think about if if he's for something that means Federal Government controls everything. You won't get it because you don't have the capacity to think outside of force. You use force on others, and you expect them to do the same. Anyhow so my involvement went from the 'racist newsletters', to 'EPA', then to environment in general, to libertarian ism, then to 'what are rights', then to abortion. I've done with this circling around of topics. I've made my comments on the newsletters so ya, I'm not gonna go 'off-topic' from that no more cuz its clear we're circling around topics I already talked about before and to which we will never agree on. Its best to leave it at that than to waste my time rehashing the past discussion. Enjoy.
